what we had here was a predator. and what he was looking for was somebody who was cut off from the herd. and if you don t realize you re in trouble until you re in trouble, then you have no way of getting out. it would be another year before jefferey mathis s body was found in the woods, miles from his home. his mother would join camille bell in forming a committee to confront the city s leaders. the reaction of the police was that we were overreacting and that there was no serial killer. even though by now six black children were dead. four others were missing. perhaps we were like distraught parents that really needed everyone s sympathy, but nobody needed to do anything.
the verdicts that our audiences reach when this documentary was first broadcast. but before then, a look at some of the answers from those who lived through the terror 30 years ago. the prosecutor. obviously guilty. the defense attorney. not proven. one way or the other. the fbi agent in charge. guilty of two double homicide. sheila baltazar. he could have killed all of them. the supreme court justice. not proven. the witness. guilty. camille bell. innocent but stupid. that first task force detective. no maybes, ifs. guilty. the right man for those homicides is in jail. the original audience verdict, guilty. 69%. innocent 4%.
way or the other, in the deaths of all of the children. camille bell. even if it takes 30 trials, i don t care. you know, prove it. the prosecutor s answer, it would serve no purpose. you can only serve one life sentence. just ahead a new alibi that backfires. he was out that night, no question in my mind. he was not at home. he was out and about. and after all these years, new dna evidence. it probably would exclude 98% or so of the people in the world. [ anouncer ] ihop is in time square to compare new griddle-melts to your usual breakfast sandwich. a lot more flavor.
0 yes, it is, actually. not until the very end of our prison interview did we come close to a real answer. it s actually a very simple question. can you kill someone with a chokehold. you probably could. you probably could under the right circumstances. i know for a fact i could not. i know you re being facetious but i know for a fact i could not. were you trained as a teenager to do that? because that s what you re writing in this. i get cia, you don t want to talk about it. it s all off the record. let me state this for the record. i think in the paper that you have i will say this. that it says that there was contact with a certain program. and i will say it was the joint officer excuse me. junior officer training program which was run by a certain agency and you re correct cia. but i never said that i worked for them. i simply said now who s splitting hairs? were you trained some contact with some person and that s all i m going to say. were you trained?
0 officer excuse me. junior officer training program which was run by a certain agency and you re correct cia. but i never said that i worked for them. i simply said now who s splitting hairs? were you trained some contact with some person and that s all i m going to say. were you trained? that s all i m going to say. in these techniques. that s all i m going to say. he did acknowledge it was cia training but said no more. so is this true? or only a fantasy in his mind? the mind of a man the courts have found to be a killer? we ll leave that question with you. the verdict is now yours to decide. three choices guilty, innocent or not proven either way. in a few moments we ll show you the verdicts that our audiences reach when this documentary was first broadcast. but before then, a look at some of the answers from those who lived through the terror 30 years ago. the prosecutor. obviously guilty. the defense attorney. not proven. one way or the other. th